Allahabad HC Upholds 1983 Rape Conviction, Imposes Rs 50,000 Fine After Trial Court Omitted Mandatory Sentencing Component

Forty-two years after conviction, the Allahabad High Court upholds a Section 376 IPC rape conviction and corrects the trial court's failure to impose a mandatory fine, directing Rs 50,000 as victim compensation.

Justice Santosh Rai, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 23 June 2026 dismissed a criminal appeal filed in 1983 by one Rakesh against his conviction under Section 376 IPC for gang rape. The appeal had been reserved on 29 April 2026. While upholding the conviction and the three-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1982, the court found that the trial court had committed a manifest error of law by imposing no fine — a component the court held to be an integral part of the sentence in rape cases. The court directed Rakesh to pay Rs 50,000 as fine, to be disbursed as compensation to the victim or her legal representatives within one month.

The Incident and Trial Court Proceedings

The case arose from Case Crime No. 39 of 1982 registered at Police Station Cantt, District Allahabad. According to the written report (Ex.Ka.2) filed by PW-2 Basdeo, the father of the victim, on 22 February 1982 at approximately 9.30 AM his daughter went to ease herself in the Kachhar area across the Nala in Mohalla Rajapur. Two accused persons, Rakesh and Prakash (also named as Om Prakash), residents of the same mohalla, caught hold of her and committed rape one by one in the field of Sri Pal. When the victim raised an alarm, the accused assaulted her with blows. A witness named Jagdish reached the spot on hearing her voice, and the accused fled.

The FIR was registered the following day, 23 February 1982, under Sections 376 and 323 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1982. The trial court convicted Rakesh under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment. The present appeal was filed in 1983 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Prosecution Evidence and the Victim's Testimony

The prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1, Dr. Pushpa Shukla, conducted the medical examination of the victim on 22 February 1982 itself and recorded six injuries: abrasions on the left wrist and left leg, a linear scratch on the back, contusions on the left shoulder, and swelling below the left knee. The medical report noted that the hymen was torn, old tears were present, and the vagina admitted two fingers easily. The duration of injuries was recorded as within 24 hours.

PW-3, the victim herself, deposed that on the date of occurrence accused Rakesh committed rape with her first and then accused Prakash followed, and that both assaulted her when she resisted. She stated her age at the time as fifteen years. PW-2 Basdeo corroborated the account his daughter had narrated to him. PW-4, Sub-Inspector Maharaj Singh, proved the formal police documents including the charge sheet.

The prosecution's documentary exhibits included the injury report (Ex.Ka.1), the written report (Ex.Ka.2), the Chik FIR (Ex.Ka.3), the duplicate GD (Ex.Ka.4), the recovery memo of dhoti and petticoat (Ex.Ka.5), the site plan (Ex.Ka.6), and the charge sheet (Ex.Ka.7). The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded; the court noted that its gist, entered in the case diary by the Investigating Officer, specifically mentioned that the accused committed rape by intimidation one by one at knifepoint.

Challenges Raised by the Appellant

Counsel for Rakesh did not press the merits of the conviction at length. The primary submission was on sentence: that the appellant, now over 60 years of age and suffering from ailments, should be released on probation given that the appeal had been pending for approximately 42 years and that he had no previous criminal history.

On the merits, counsel argued that there were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, and that the victim could not identify the accused due to darkness. Counsel also relied on the medical finding of an old torn hymen to suggest that the victim was habitual of physical relations with others and that rape had not been established.

How the Court Reasoned on Conviction

Justice Rai rejected the identification argument. The victim had stated that the sun rose half an hour after the incident, and the court found that the accused being residents of the same mohalla made identification plausible. The court held that the victim's inability to see the path from which the accused arrived did not mean she could not identify them. The argument based on darkness was described as unimpressive.

On the hymen finding, the court observed that the hymen may be torn due to various factors including sports, cycling, gymnastics, horse-riding, physical labour, or accidental injury, and that some individuals are born with a perforated or absent hymen. The court held that an accused cannot be granted benefit of doubt solely on the ground of an old torn hymen where the statement of the victim is “wholly reliable”. The court reiterated that rape is a legal term, not a medical term, and that a finding of old torn hymen cannot by itself negate the offence.

The court applied the principle that in rape cases the testimony of the prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness and requires no corroboration if it inspires confidence. Reliance was placed on Ganga Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2013 SC 3008. The court found no material contradiction in the victim's account and noted that her six injuries corroborated her statement that the accused had assaulted her during the commission of the offence. The site plan was prepared on the pointing of the victim and proved by the Investigating Officer.

The court found no glaring infirmity, perversity, or manifest error in the trial court's reasoning on guilt and upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC.

Rejection of the Probation Plea

The court declined to extend the benefit of probation. Justice Rai held that probation cannot be extended as a matter of right, particularly in cases involving heinous offences or offences against the human body. Section 376 IPC carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The court observed that extending probation to a person convicted of rape would send a wrong message to society and dilute the deterrence of criminal law. The court also noted that the trial court had already taken a lenient view by awarding only three years rigorous imprisonment.

The Sentencing Error: Absence of Fine

The court's most pointed intervention concerned the sentence itself. The trial court had imposed three years rigorous imprisonment without recording any “adequate and special reasons” for departing from the statutory minimum of seven years under Section 376 IPC, and had imposed no fine at all.

Justice Rai held that the trial court committed a manifest error of law on both counts. On the absence of reasons for the below-minimum sentence, the court observed that any deviation from the statutory minimum must be founded on exceptional, cogent, and compelling circumstances explicitly detailed in the judgment. The trial court had provided none. The State, however, had filed no appeal or revision seeking enhancement of the substantive sentence, and the learned Additional Government Advocate confirmed this position. The court therefore left the three-year term undisturbed.

On the fine, the court held that imposition of fine is an integral part and fundamental aspect of the punishment under Section 376 IPC. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 384 and State of M.P. v. Ramesh & Anr., (2011) 4 SCC 786, where the Supreme Court emphasised that courts must strictly adhere to sentencing provisions and that the victim's right cannot be disregarded by omitting mandatory components of the sentence. The court also referred to Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. A.K. Abdul Samad and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 785 on the nature of fine as an integral sentencing component.

On proportionality more broadly, the court drew on Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 516 and the principle that undue sympathy in imposing inadequate sentences harms the justice system and undermines public confidence in the efficacy of law.

Order

The conviction of Rakesh under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment were upheld. In addition, the court directed Rakesh to pay a fine of Rs 50,000 (fifty thousand rupees) for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The entire fine amount is to be paid as compensation to the victim within one month from the date of the order. In the event of the victim's death, the amount is to be paid to her legal representatives. In default of payment, Rakesh is to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months.

Rakesh was directed to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court concerned within the stipulated period. The trial court, after notice and verification, is to distribute the amount to the victim or her legal heirs through bank accounts.

The bail bonds of the appellant were cancelled with immediate effect. If currently on bail, Rakesh is directed to surrender before the trial court within ten days to serve out the remainder of the substantive sentence. If he fails to surrender, the trial court is directed to take immediate legal steps including issuance of a non-bailable warrant. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

The trial court record along with a copy of the judgment is to be transmitted forthwith to the court concerned. The trial court is directed to submit a compliance report within two months of receipt of the order. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of the order within three days by fax or e-mail to the concerned court through the District & Sessions Judge, Allahabad.